To continue the discussion about his personal life. perhaps more positive things could be added. but invading other people's privacy who aren't celebrities should be avoided. Jon Moss is mentioned because he is also a celebrity and was in Culture Club with George as well as other well known bands and thus put himself in the spotlight. George's other lover, Michael Dunne was not a celebrity or a famous musician. George has only briefly talked about that relationship in the media, whereas he has talked extensively about his relationship with Mr. Moss. Naturally, people here can only draw on what George has said in the media and not write things that are rumors or gossip. George has written two autobiographies so perhaps information about his personal life could be got from there and put in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.26.15 ( talk) 20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure there needs to be a separate section about sexual orientation as well as the personal life section. The sexual orientation section has more neutral and positive information about his personal life that could be put into that section. To me, sexual orientation is part of a person's personal life so I don't see the need for a separate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.26.15 ( talk) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This personal life section is only a history of legal troubles... perhaps it should be named accordingly? I don't consider my parking tickets and other legal troubles a part of my personal life. If any information is available on his romantic history or leisure activities, these should be included, but with the existing information, no personal life section seems necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.202.245 ( talk) 05:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article varies in referring to him using all three, when it should be consistent. Usually, an encyclopedia biography should refer to the subject by his surname. Jim Michael ( talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The text and its context can be interpreted as implying that he should have known that the antique dealer was fencing stolen goods.
Another point is that there might be a better choice of words, then to say that he returned the icon to the Church of Cyprus. He made a legal purchase from an antique deler, and then later transferred (for unspecified reasons) the icon to a religious organization. -- Normash ( talk) 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Boy George. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has twice reversed my edit describing Boy George (George O'Dowd) as second-generation Irish rather than English. I presume the fact that George O'Dowd was born in England is the reason my change has been rejected. The most recent reversion was accompanied by a reference to a 'POV' edit. If, as I imagine, POV is an abbreviation for 'point of view', I would contest this high-handed description. The issue of nationality for second-generation Irish people born in the UK is a complicated area, but suffice to say for now that many people born in countries other than England are described on Wikipedia as English (e.g. George Orwell), illustrating that country of birth is not necessarily the determinant of nationality. Children of Irish citizens born in England are automatically considered Irish by the Irish government, and can obtain an Irish passport. British citizenship is granted to the same children under certain conditions defined by British nationality law. Note that this would be British citizenship, not English nationality, so even if George O'Dowd has claimed citizenship under British law, he will be described in law as British, not English. It follows that George O'Dowd can be described without contradiction as Irish (within Irish law), and as British if he meets British nationality-law criteria (this will have been established if he applied for a British passport). I think the Wikipedia editor's granting of precedence to 'English' over Irish nationality demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue, and shows a bias in favour of 'English' nationality. I had nuanced my edit by specifying that O'Dowd is second-generation Irish, a description that has no basis in Irish law but which, in my view, better describes his nationality. I have emailed the Boy George website to query Boy George's nationality, and await a reply. If the editor has evidence that Boy George is English and not second-generation Irish (note: rejecting my edit is effectively a double declaration: that Boy George is English, and that he is not second-generation Irish), I wish to learn of it. My belief that Boy George is second-generation Irish is based on the following: (i) his parents were both Irish by birth (i.e. born to Irish parents in Ireland); (ii) the children of Irish citizens are considered Irish within Irish law without the need to acquire documentation (e.g. George O'Dowd would be automatically entitled to full voting rights in Ireland were he to live here, and without the need to obtain documentation); (iii) Boy George has often declared himself to be Irish (though he may have dual nationality: Irish and British). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoipal1930s ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This discussion, in the first instance, points to how Wikipedia editors assume contributors to Wikipedia know how the system works – i.e. I was advised to open a discussion on the issue, when in fact I had no idea how to do so (why didn't the editor do so?). An editor also described my edit as 'Convoluted POV' - an abbreviation I did not understand (and a description – 'convoluted' – I consider inaccurate and insulting). Both of these things make me feel as if I've strayed into a club of which I'm not a member. The statement 'won't get you anywhere' is also high-handed – it wouldn't pass muster in an academic publication, so why here? More substantially, the declaration that Boy George is English because, among other things, 'He is known as being English' follows the statement that 'just professing your own opinion on George's nationality repeatedly without any external support won't get you anywhere'. This is contradictory – i.e. the statement 'He is known to be English' surely does not constitute good grounds for insisting he is English (and I might add that in Ireland he is known to be Irish, so where does this get us?). An editor declares 'place of birth does not necessarily define nationality'. Precisely. But another editor offers 'He was born in England' as reason for describing Boy George as English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoipal1930s ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. However, it doesn't convince me. You state that 'He is best known as being English', but in Ireland he is best known as being Irish. You are correct to say that I also amended the entry for John Lydon (also best known in Ireland as being Irish, and the holder of an Irish passport), and if I had the time and energy I'd do the same for many others. I'm an anti-imperialist (not a nationalist), and think it useful to take issue with a certain kind of English chauvinism whereby people whose nationality is open to question or not clear-cut are routinely claimed as English without qualification because they can bring credit to the British nation (people falling into the same category are usually disowned when they might discredit the British nation). I think Wikipedia should not seek to simplify the issue of nationality but present all the relevant information, which in this case would entail not deleting my edit to the effect that he is second-generation Irish – perhaps it should say he is a second-generation-Irish British citizen (assuming this is true – i.e. he is a British citizen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoipal1930s ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boy George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently noted that Escape Orbit had reverted an edit which simply enhanced the detail of this page. The formation year of the band Culture Club, which propelled Boy George to fame. I thought the information was highly relevant, so re-inserted it, only to have Escape Orbit revert it again and say it wasn't necessary. I really do not understand this attitude. Making Wiki articles as specific as possible seems to me to be good practice and I cannot comprehend why somebody would be so against it in this particular instance. ( Mr Dog 1982 ( talk) 14:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC))
Oh, I thought details were important. My mistake.
( Mr Dog 1982 ( talk) 16:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC))
After Boy George appeared in Who Do You Think You Are?, his Irish background has been frequently covered by media, and I think it is better to mention his Irish roots in the first sentence. Although it was declined in the previous discussion, the situation has changed and his Irish background has become something notable for many people because of the TV show. Here are a few examples:
As the last article shows, Boy George calls himself "Irish", and other articles also regard him as an Irish musician born in England. So, how about changing the first sentence from "Boy George (born George Alan O'Dowd; 14 June 1961) is an English singer, songwriter, DJ and fashion designer." to "Boy George (born George Alan O'Dowd; 14 June 1961) is a London-born Irish singer, songwriter, DJ and fashion designer." with these three references added? -- saebou ( talk) 15:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there is concensus at the relevant wikiproject (that I cannot recall :-( ) to use were and not was when referring to the name of rock/pop groups. It pains me too when I am being gramatically rigid, but grammar is fluid, not rigid, and a collective noun can be taken as plural if the context demands it. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Boy George has been recently criticised for making trapsphobic comments on twitter, as an obvious attempt at attention grabbing. The incident was reported by both PinkNews and The Independent, which I believe make this incident noteworthy. I believe both outlets are reliable, if I'm not mistaken. I'd add it myself but I'd rather leave it to regular users who know what they're doing. Also, not noteworthy, but it looks like alt right influencers are already making a move to claim him for themselves. 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Keith D, Necrothesp, Escape Orbit, Punkyfish3000, Pabsoluterince, PaleCloudedWhite, Nyook, and Roger 8 Roger: Greetings and felicitations recent editors. I'm just a WikiDee stopping by, but it seems to me that the "Discography" section is in some ways more detailed than the discography article, at least as far as the singles go. Perhaps the section should be entirely integrated into the article? Also, the albums subsection is substantially duplicated by the lead section. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 08:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
To continue the discussion about his personal life. perhaps more positive things could be added. but invading other people's privacy who aren't celebrities should be avoided. Jon Moss is mentioned because he is also a celebrity and was in Culture Club with George as well as other well known bands and thus put himself in the spotlight. George's other lover, Michael Dunne was not a celebrity or a famous musician. George has only briefly talked about that relationship in the media, whereas he has talked extensively about his relationship with Mr. Moss. Naturally, people here can only draw on what George has said in the media and not write things that are rumors or gossip. George has written two autobiographies so perhaps information about his personal life could be got from there and put in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.26.15 ( talk) 20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure there needs to be a separate section about sexual orientation as well as the personal life section. The sexual orientation section has more neutral and positive information about his personal life that could be put into that section. To me, sexual orientation is part of a person's personal life so I don't see the need for a separate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.26.15 ( talk) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This personal life section is only a history of legal troubles... perhaps it should be named accordingly? I don't consider my parking tickets and other legal troubles a part of my personal life. If any information is available on his romantic history or leisure activities, these should be included, but with the existing information, no personal life section seems necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.202.245 ( talk) 05:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The article varies in referring to him using all three, when it should be consistent. Usually, an encyclopedia biography should refer to the subject by his surname. Jim Michael ( talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The text and its context can be interpreted as implying that he should have known that the antique dealer was fencing stolen goods.
Another point is that there might be a better choice of words, then to say that he returned the icon to the Church of Cyprus. He made a legal purchase from an antique deler, and then later transferred (for unspecified reasons) the icon to a religious organization. -- Normash ( talk) 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Boy George. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has twice reversed my edit describing Boy George (George O'Dowd) as second-generation Irish rather than English. I presume the fact that George O'Dowd was born in England is the reason my change has been rejected. The most recent reversion was accompanied by a reference to a 'POV' edit. If, as I imagine, POV is an abbreviation for 'point of view', I would contest this high-handed description. The issue of nationality for second-generation Irish people born in the UK is a complicated area, but suffice to say for now that many people born in countries other than England are described on Wikipedia as English (e.g. George Orwell), illustrating that country of birth is not necessarily the determinant of nationality. Children of Irish citizens born in England are automatically considered Irish by the Irish government, and can obtain an Irish passport. British citizenship is granted to the same children under certain conditions defined by British nationality law. Note that this would be British citizenship, not English nationality, so even if George O'Dowd has claimed citizenship under British law, he will be described in law as British, not English. It follows that George O'Dowd can be described without contradiction as Irish (within Irish law), and as British if he meets British nationality-law criteria (this will have been established if he applied for a British passport). I think the Wikipedia editor's granting of precedence to 'English' over Irish nationality demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue, and shows a bias in favour of 'English' nationality. I had nuanced my edit by specifying that O'Dowd is second-generation Irish, a description that has no basis in Irish law but which, in my view, better describes his nationality. I have emailed the Boy George website to query Boy George's nationality, and await a reply. If the editor has evidence that Boy George is English and not second-generation Irish (note: rejecting my edit is effectively a double declaration: that Boy George is English, and that he is not second-generation Irish), I wish to learn of it. My belief that Boy George is second-generation Irish is based on the following: (i) his parents were both Irish by birth (i.e. born to Irish parents in Ireland); (ii) the children of Irish citizens are considered Irish within Irish law without the need to acquire documentation (e.g. George O'Dowd would be automatically entitled to full voting rights in Ireland were he to live here, and without the need to obtain documentation); (iii) Boy George has often declared himself to be Irish (though he may have dual nationality: Irish and British). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoipal1930s ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This discussion, in the first instance, points to how Wikipedia editors assume contributors to Wikipedia know how the system works – i.e. I was advised to open a discussion on the issue, when in fact I had no idea how to do so (why didn't the editor do so?). An editor also described my edit as 'Convoluted POV' - an abbreviation I did not understand (and a description – 'convoluted' – I consider inaccurate and insulting). Both of these things make me feel as if I've strayed into a club of which I'm not a member. The statement 'won't get you anywhere' is also high-handed – it wouldn't pass muster in an academic publication, so why here? More substantially, the declaration that Boy George is English because, among other things, 'He is known as being English' follows the statement that 'just professing your own opinion on George's nationality repeatedly without any external support won't get you anywhere'. This is contradictory – i.e. the statement 'He is known to be English' surely does not constitute good grounds for insisting he is English (and I might add that in Ireland he is known to be Irish, so where does this get us?). An editor declares 'place of birth does not necessarily define nationality'. Precisely. But another editor offers 'He was born in England' as reason for describing Boy George as English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoipal1930s ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. However, it doesn't convince me. You state that 'He is best known as being English', but in Ireland he is best known as being Irish. You are correct to say that I also amended the entry for John Lydon (also best known in Ireland as being Irish, and the holder of an Irish passport), and if I had the time and energy I'd do the same for many others. I'm an anti-imperialist (not a nationalist), and think it useful to take issue with a certain kind of English chauvinism whereby people whose nationality is open to question or not clear-cut are routinely claimed as English without qualification because they can bring credit to the British nation (people falling into the same category are usually disowned when they might discredit the British nation). I think Wikipedia should not seek to simplify the issue of nationality but present all the relevant information, which in this case would entail not deleting my edit to the effect that he is second-generation Irish – perhaps it should say he is a second-generation-Irish British citizen (assuming this is true – i.e. he is a British citizen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daoipal1930s ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boy George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently noted that Escape Orbit had reverted an edit which simply enhanced the detail of this page. The formation year of the band Culture Club, which propelled Boy George to fame. I thought the information was highly relevant, so re-inserted it, only to have Escape Orbit revert it again and say it wasn't necessary. I really do not understand this attitude. Making Wiki articles as specific as possible seems to me to be good practice and I cannot comprehend why somebody would be so against it in this particular instance. ( Mr Dog 1982 ( talk) 14:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC))
Oh, I thought details were important. My mistake.
( Mr Dog 1982 ( talk) 16:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC))
After Boy George appeared in Who Do You Think You Are?, his Irish background has been frequently covered by media, and I think it is better to mention his Irish roots in the first sentence. Although it was declined in the previous discussion, the situation has changed and his Irish background has become something notable for many people because of the TV show. Here are a few examples:
As the last article shows, Boy George calls himself "Irish", and other articles also regard him as an Irish musician born in England. So, how about changing the first sentence from "Boy George (born George Alan O'Dowd; 14 June 1961) is an English singer, songwriter, DJ and fashion designer." to "Boy George (born George Alan O'Dowd; 14 June 1961) is a London-born Irish singer, songwriter, DJ and fashion designer." with these three references added? -- saebou ( talk) 15:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there is concensus at the relevant wikiproject (that I cannot recall :-( ) to use were and not was when referring to the name of rock/pop groups. It pains me too when I am being gramatically rigid, but grammar is fluid, not rigid, and a collective noun can be taken as plural if the context demands it. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Boy George has been recently criticised for making trapsphobic comments on twitter, as an obvious attempt at attention grabbing. The incident was reported by both PinkNews and The Independent, which I believe make this incident noteworthy. I believe both outlets are reliable, if I'm not mistaken. I'd add it myself but I'd rather leave it to regular users who know what they're doing. Also, not noteworthy, but it looks like alt right influencers are already making a move to claim him for themselves. 46.97.170.78 ( talk) 21:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Keith D, Necrothesp, Escape Orbit, Punkyfish3000, Pabsoluterince, PaleCloudedWhite, Nyook, and Roger 8 Roger: Greetings and felicitations recent editors. I'm just a WikiDee stopping by, but it seems to me that the "Discography" section is in some ways more detailed than the discography article, at least as far as the singles go. Perhaps the section should be entirely integrated into the article? Also, the albums subsection is substantially duplicated by the lead section. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 08:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)